diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex
index d1816f2ba299e661688e16db5bf7f35e4fed0532..e27a1b8e5ea04d92a37fd39c8955b527e1841281 100644
--- a/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -332,23 +332,14 @@ aid of a machine or device'' (as stated in
 \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102}{17 USC \S~102}), is thus
 covered by the statute, and is copyrighted by default.
 
-However, software, in its natural state without copyright, is Free
-Software. In an imaginary world with no copyright, the rules would be
-different. In this world, when you received a copy of a program's source
-code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it
-with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified
-versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the
-  complexities with this argument are discussed in
-  Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}
-
 % Potential re-write: 
 % +-----------------+ 
-% Software, in a state of nature, is Free Software.
-% In an imaginary world without copyright, when you receive a copy of a program's source 
-% code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it 
-% with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified 
-% versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the 
-% complexities with this argument are discussed in % Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}
+Software, in a state of nature, is Free Software.
+In an imaginary world without copyright, when you receive a copy of a program's source 
+code, there would be no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it 
+with others, making modifications, or redistributing those modified 
+versions.\footnote{Note that this is again an oversimplification; the 
+complexities with this argument are discussed in Section~\ref{software-and-non-copyright}.}
 
 % Come back to this. The idea that software has a copyright-less natural 
 % state contradicts copyright law as it exists, which assumes copyright 
@@ -482,10 +473,10 @@ not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum.  The strongest copylefts use the
 exclusive rights that copyright  grants authors as extensively as possible
 to maximize software freedom.  As a copyleft gets ``weaker'', the copyleft
 license typically makes ``trade offs'' that might impede software freedom,
-but reach other tactic goals for the community of users and developers of the
+but reach other tactical goals for the community of users and developers of the
 work.
 
-In other words, strong copyleft licenses place the more requirements on how
+In other words, strong copyleft licenses place more requirements on how
 ``the work'' is licensed.  The unit of copyright law is ``the work''.  In
 that sense, the ``work'' referenced by the licenses is anything that can be
 copyrighted or will be subject to the terms of copyright law.  Strong
@@ -500,7 +491,7 @@ code\footnote{Copyleft communities' use of the term ``strong copyleft'' is
   copyleft community continues to debate where the a license cross the line
   from ``strong copyleft'' to ``license that fails to respect software
   freedom'', although ultimately these debates are actually regarding whether
-  the license fits \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
+  the license fits the \hyperref[Free Software Definition]{Free Software
     definition} at all.}.  Thus, copyleft licenses, particularly strong ones,
 seek to ensure the same license covers every version of ``work based on the
 work'', as recognized by local copyright law, and thereby achieve the
@@ -512,7 +503,7 @@ developers, authors, and readers who encounter the copylefted work.
  
 The use, modification and distribution of software, like many endeavors,
 simultaneously interacts with multiple different legal regimes.  As was noted
-early via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to
+earlier via footnotes, copyright is merely the \textit{most common way} to
 restrict users' rights to copy, share, modify and/or redistribute software.
 However, proprietary software licenses typically use every mechanism
 available to subjugate users.  For example:
@@ -539,7 +530,7 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:
   software source code (read by humans), from their compiled binaries (read
   only by computers).  Furthermore,
   \href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201}{17 USC~\S1201} often
-  prohibits users legally from circumventing some of these DRM systems.
+  legally prohibits users from circumventing some of these DRM systems.
 
 \item Most EULAs also include a contractual agreement that bind users further
   by forcing them to agree to a contractual, prohibitive software license
@@ -548,9 +539,9 @@ available to subjugate users.  For example:
 \end{itemize}
 
 Thus, most proprietary software restricts users via multiple interlocking
-legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respect the software
+legal and technological means.  Any license that truly respects the software
 freedom of all users must not only grant appropriate copyright permissions,
-but also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological
+but must also \textit{prevent} restrictions from other legal and technological
 means like those listed above.
 
 \subsection{Non-USA Copyright Regimes}
@@ -569,7 +560,7 @@ waived nor disclaimed.  Specifically, many copyright regimes outside the USA
 recognize a concept of moral rights of authors.  Typically, moral rights are
 fully compatible with respecting software freedom, as they are usually
 centered around controls that software freedom licenses generally respect,
-such as the right of an authors to require proper attribution for their work.
+such as the right of an author to require proper attribution for their work.
 
 \section{A Community of Equality}
 
@@ -577,9 +568,9 @@ The previous section described the principles of software freedom, a brief
 introduction to mechanisms that typically block these freedoms, and the
 simplest ways that copyright holders might grant those freedoms to their
 users for their copyrighted works of software.  The previous section also
-introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism to use
+introduced the idea of \textit{copyleft}: a licensing mechanism which uses
 copyright to not only grant software freedom to users, but also to uphold
-those rights against those who might seek to curtail them.
+those rights against the actions of those who might seek to curtail them.
 
 Copyleft, as defined in \S~\ref{copyleft-definition}, is a general term for this
 mechanism.  The remainder of this text will discuss details of various
@@ -587,7 +578,7 @@ real-world implementations of copyleft -- most notably, the GPL\@.
 
 This discussion begins first with some general explanation of what the GPL is
 able to do in software development communities.  After that brief discussion
-in this section, deeper discussion of how GPL accomplishes this in practice
+in this section, deeper discussion of how the GPL accomplishes this in practice
 follows in the next chapter.
 
 Simply put, though, the GPL ultimately creates a community of equality for
@@ -628,7 +619,7 @@ systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
 Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
 it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments.\footnote{See
   \href{http://turtle.ee.ncku.edu.tw/docs/samba/history}{Andrew Tridgell's
-    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''}}  However, very
+    ``A bit of history and a bit of fun''.}}  However, very
 soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
 as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
 Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
@@ -639,10 +630,10 @@ students who originally developed the software.
 
 The noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
 fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work.  They knew
-that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
+that because of the nature of the GPL, improvements that were
 distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
 the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
-Samba, so the noncommercial users, and even other commercial users are
+Samba, so noncommercial users, and even other commercial users, are
 safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by the GPL will remain
 protected.
 
